The cowardly New York Times – which originally accurately portrayed President Trump’s call for unity against racism — has now bowed to pressure from Democrats and changed their headline.
The original headline of Tuesday’s morning edition, after Trump’s address had read — “Trump urges unity vs. racism.” However, after photos of the headline appeared online Monday night, it sparked major objection from the field of 2020 Democratic candidates and others in the party.
The headline ran only in the Times’ first print edition on Tuesday, and was changed in subsequent editions, The Times said in a statement.
The original headline didn’t sit well with a number of Democrats.
“Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions,” tweeted Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who told CNN over the weekend that Trump was “responsible for this,” said via Twitter, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Fellow Democratic presidential candidates Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O’Rourke – who called the headline “unbelievable” – also sounded off on Twitter.
Even a New York Times contributor was taken aback by the headline. Op-ed contributing writer Wajahat Ali tweeted, “I write for the NYT. This is a terrible headline.”
Times Bows to Criticism and Changes Headline
After the brouhaha by the Dems, the Times caved, and changed the headline in later editions to read, “Assailing hate but not guns.”
Trump has repeatedly faced criticism by the left for his stance on immigration and his perceived racially charged and inflammatory rhetoric. In this context they found his calls for “Unity in the face of bigotry” to be insincere, and the Times apparently agreed.
After the changed headline, Ali tweeted appreciation: “This one is on point! Thank you!”
“The original headline was flawed and was changed for all editions of the paper following the first edition,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, vice president of Communications for The Times, said in an emailed statement Tuesday. “The headline in question never appeared online, only in the first print edition.”
